A review of factors influencing user satisfaction in information retrieval

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 859-868

  Al Maskari, Azzah ^a   Sanderson, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS; USER CHARACTERISTICS; USER SATISFACTION;

SEARCH ENGINES;

EID: 79960846579     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.21300     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Allan, J., Carterette, B., & Lewis, J. (2005). When will information retrieval be "good enough"? User effectiveness as a function of retrieval accuracy. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 433-440). New York: ACM Press.
2. Al-Maskari, A., Sanderson, M., & Clough, P. (2008). The good and the bad system: Does the test collection predict users' effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, (pp. 59-66). New York: ACM Press.
3. Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern information retrieval. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.
4. Belkin, N.J., & Vickery, A. (1985). Interaction in information systems: A review of research from document retrieval to knowledge-based systems. London: British Library.
5. Bruce, H. (1998). User satisfaction with information seeking on the Internet. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(6), 541-556.
6. Cooper, W.S. (1968). Expected search length: A single measure of retrieval effectiveness based on the weak ordering action of retrieval systems. American Documentation, 19(1), 30-41.
7. Cooper, W.S. (1973). On selecting a measure of retrieval effectiveness. Part II. Implementation of the philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(6), 413-424.
8. Egan, D.E. (1988). Individual differences in human-computer interaction. In M.G. Helander, T.K. Landauer, & P.V. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9. Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2000). Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 345-352). New York: ACM Press.
10. Garoufallou, E., Trohopoulos, I., Siatri, R., & Balatsoukas, P. (2007). A user-centred approach to the evaluation of digital cultural heritage maps: the VeriaGrid system. In Proceedings of Libraries Without Walls 7. Manchester, UK: Centre for Research in Library and Information Management.
11. Gatian, A.W. (1994). Is user satisfaction a valid measure of system effectiveness? Information and Management, 26(3), 119-131.
12. Gluck, M. (1996). Exploring the relationship between user satisfaction and relevance in information systems. Information Processing and Management, 32(1), 89-104.
13. Griffiths, J., Johnson, F., & Hartley, R. (2007). User satisfaction as a measure of system performance. Journal of Librarianship and Science, 39(3), 142-152.
14. Harter, S.P., & Hert, C.A. (1997). Evaluation of information retrieval systems: Approaches, issues, and methods. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 32, 3-94.
15. Hersh, W., Buckley, C., Leone, T.J., & Hickam, D. (1994). OHSUMED: An interactive retrieval evaluation and new large test collection for research. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 192-201). New York: ACM Press.
16. Hersh, W., & Hickam, D.H. (1995). An evaluation of interactive Boolean and natural language searching with an online medical textbook. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(7), 478-489.
17. Hersh, W.R., & Molnar, A. (1995). Towards new measures of information retrieval evaluation. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 164-170). New York: ACM Press.
18. Hersh, W., Pentecost, J., & Hickam, D. (1996). A task-oriented approach to information retrieval evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(1), 50-56.
19. Hersh, W., Turpin, A., Price, S., Chan, B., Kramer, D., Sacherek, L., et al. (2000). Do batch and user evaluations give the same results? In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 17-24). New York: ACM Press.
20. Hildreth, C.R. (2001). Accounting for users' inflated assessments of online catalogue search performance and usefulness: An experimental study. Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://informationr.net/ir/6-2/paper101.html
21. Huffman, S.B., & Hochster, M. (2007). How well does result relevance predict session satisfaction? In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 567-574). New York: ACM Press.
22. Hufnagel, E.M. (1990). User satisfaction-are we really measuring system effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science (pp. 237-446). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society.
23. Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2000). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 41-48). New York: ACM Press.
24. Johnson, F.C., Griffiths, J.R., & Hartley, R.J. (2003). Task dimensions of user evaluations of information retrieval systems. Information Research. 8(4). Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper157.html
25. Kokubu, T., Sakai, T., Saito, Y., Tsutsui, H., Manabe, T., Koyama, M., et al. (2005, December). The relationship between answer ranking and user satisfaction in a question answering system. Paper presented at the 5th NTCIR Workshop Meeting on Evaluation of Information Access Technologies (NTCIR-5), Tokyo, Japan.
26. Korfhage, R.R. (1997). Information storage and retrieval. New York: Wiley.
27. Lancaster, F.W. (1969). MEDLARS: Report on the evaluation of its operating efficiency. American Documentation, 20(2), 119-142.
28. Lancaster, F.W. (1979). Information retrieval systems: characteristics, testing and evaluation, Chichester, UK: Wiley.
29. Lancaster, F.W. (1981). Evaluation within the environment of an operating information service. In K. Spärck Jones (Ed.), Information retrieval experiment (pp. 103-127). London: Butterworths.
30. Lancaster, F.W., Cheryl, E., Mary, J.Z., Laura, M., & Yuen-Man, L. (1994). Searching databases on CD-ROM: Comparison of the results of end-user searching with results from two modes of searching by skilled intermediaries. RQ, 33(3), 370-386.
31. Law, E. L.-C., Klobučar, T., & Pipan, M. (2006). User effect in evaluating personalized information retrieval systems. In W. Nejdl, & K. Tochtermann (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4227, pp. 257-271). Berlin: Springer.
32. Lazonder, A.W., Biemans, H.J.A., & Wopereis, I.G.J.H. (2000). Differences between novice and experienced users in searching information on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(6), 576-581.
33. Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
35. Sandore, B. (1990). Online searching: What measure satisfaction? Library and Information Science Research, 12(1), 33-54.
36. Saracevic, T., & Kantor, P. (1988). A study of information seeking and retrieving. II. Users, questions, and effectiveness. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 39(3), 177-196.
37. Soergel, D. (1976). Is user satisfaction a hobgoblin? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(4), 256-259.
38. Spärck Jones, K. (1981). Information retrieval experiment. London: Butterworths.
39. Steffey, R.J., & Meyer, N. (1989). Evaluating user success and satisfaction with CD-ROM. Laserdisk Professional, 2(5), 35-45.
40. Su, L.T. (1991). An investigation to find appropriate measures for evaluating interactive information retrieval. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
41. Su, L.T. (1992). Evaluation measures for interactive information retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 28(4), 503-516.
42. Su, L.T. (1994). The relevance of recall and precision in user evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 207-217.
43. Su, L.T. (1998). Value of search results as a whole as the best single measure of information retrieval performance. Information Processing and Management, 34(5), 557-579.
44. Su, L.T. (2003). A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation of Web search engines: II. An evaluation by undergraduates. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 1193-1223.
45. Tessier, J.A., Crouch, W.W., & Atherton, P. (1977). New measures of user satisfaction with computer based literature searches. Special Libraries, 68(11), 383-389.
46. Thomas, P., & Hawking, D. (2006). Evaluation by comparing result sets in context. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (pp. 94-101). New York: ACM Press.
47. Turpin, A.H., & Hersh, W. (2001). Why batch and user evaluations do not give the same results. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 225-231). New York: ACM Press.
48. Turpin, A., & Scholer, F. (2006). User performance versus precision measures for simple search tasks. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 11-18). New York: ACM Press.
49. Van Rijsbergen, C.J. (1979). Information retrieval. London: Butterworths.
50. Wilson, T.D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Sciences, 3(2), 49-55.